Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LESTER S. MILLER v. MIFFLIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND MIFFLIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (09/23/83)

filed: September 23, 1983.

LESTER S. MILLER, JR. AND JUNIATA FOODS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MIFFLIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND MIFFLIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FMC CORPORATION AND AVTEX FIBERS, INC.



No. 45 Harrisburg 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action, Mifflin County, No. 2091 of 1978.

COUNSEL

G. Thomas Miller, Randolph M. Baker, Harrisburg, for appellants.

Allen Joseph Levin, Lewistown, for Mifflin County Indus. Development Authority, appellee.

Robert B. Brugler, Lewistown, for Mifflin County Indus. Development Corp., appellee.

Cercone, President Judge, and Wickersham and Montemuro, JJ.

Author: Montemuro

[ 319 Pa. Super. Page 189]

This case was initiated in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County with the filing of a complaint in equity by the appellants, Lester S. Miller, Jr., and Juniata Foods, Inc., against the appellees, Mifflin County Industrial Development Authority (MCIDA) and Mifflin County Industrial

[ 319 Pa. Super. Page 190]

Development Corporation (MCIDC). The dispute between the parties arose from differences encountered in complying with the terms of an agreement for the sale of certain warehouse property. For the most part, appellants' (the buyers) allegations pertained to the appellees' (the sellers) failure to provide them with an adequate water supply to accommodate the warehouse sprinkler system and that appellees' agents had wilfully and wantonly removed a railroad spur line (Spur No. 1) located on that property without their consent. Appellants also asked the court to award compensatory punitive damages for the appellees' trespass.

First, the court below found that appellants did have an implied easement right to a sprinkler system under the sale agreement. On this basis, the court awarded appellants the increased amount of fire insurance premiums due as a result of the unworkable sprinkler system, ordered appellee, MCIDA, to provide adequate water and water pressure to serve appellants' warehouse sprinkler system for a reasonable cost; and further ordered appellee, MCIDA, to pay to appellants the cost of reactivating the sprinkler system. The court also ordered the appellants to execute an indemnification agreement to hold harmless appellee, MCIDA, from any claims by appellants, and their successors, which might arise as a result of negligent interruption of water service to the sprinkler system.

Second, the court found that appellants suffered no compensable loss for the removal of Spur No. 1:

With respect to the railroad spur issue, it is evident that the gravamen of Plaintiffs' prayer for relief concerns damages in the form of reimbursement for the cost of replacing Spur 1. Testimony of a railroad builder placed this cost in the neighborhood of $22,000.00. While Plaintiffs have argued and pressed this claim at times in easement terminology, the relief actually sought is replacement of Spur 1 or the monetary value thereof. We must find this relief untenable and will not grant same because of the uncontradicted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.